STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LARRY D. FISHERÂ (15-08-1690, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5411-15T1

Background

Police applied for warrants to search Larry D. Fisher’s Lakewood residence and a Lexus after a confidential informant (CI) identified Fisher in a photo and said the CI could buy marijuana from him at that address.
Detective Gartner described two controlled purchases: police searched the CI before and after each purchase (no contraband found on the CI), surveilled the CI and Fisher meeting, and the recovered substance field-tested positive for marijuana.
The CI had prior assistance that led to four drug arrests; DMV and criminal records corroborated Fisher’s residence at the quoted address.
The issued warrant mistakenly included the single word "weapons," though the affidavit and detective testimony never sought weapons and the inclusion appeared to be a scrivener’s error.
During execution, officers knocked and announced twice, heard movement, waited about ten seconds between announcements, then breached the door; after arrest and Miranda warnings at the station Fisher volunteered the firearm’s concealed location in an air-conditioning unit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for search warrant	Affidavit (CI tip + two surveilled controlled buys + positive field test + residence records) established probable cause	CI lacked disclosed basis of knowledge and police did not witness the actual drug exchange inside the residence, so affidavit insufficient	Probable cause existed: CI’s past reliability and two corroborated controlled buys (with positive test) sufficed to establish veracity and basis of knowledge
Inclusion of "weapons" in warrant	Inclusion was inadvertent scrivener’s error; no bad faith; affidavit didn’t request weapons	Word made warrant overbroad and invalidated the search	Not fatal: technical irregularity; absent bad faith, error did not void the warrant; warrant otherwise proper
Seizure of firearm (plain view/plain consent)	Firearm located only after Fisher, post-Miranda, volunteered its location; not seized under warrant	If seized pursuant to warrant or plain view after unlawful search, should be suppressed	Firearm admissible: Fisher voluntarily disclosed location at station, so not result of exploratory search; seizure lawful
Knock-and-announce rule during entry	Officers knocked and announced twice, heard interior movement, waited reasonable time then breached	No no-knock provision and no exigency; breaching ram entry violated knock-and-announce	No violation: credited testimony showed two announcements and brief, reasonable waits given risk of drug destruction; entry lawful
Statements at station (fruit of poisonous tree)	Statements post-Miranda were voluntary and not product of illegal arrest/search	Statements tainted by alleged illegal arrest/search and must be suppressed	Not merit: because arrests/searches lawful, statement not fruit of poisonous tree; admission stands

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilson, 178 N.J. 7 (discussing four‑corners review of affidavits supporting warrants)
State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541 (defendant bears burden to show absence of probable cause)
State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377 (informant reliability: veracity and basis of knowledge; corroboration requirement)
State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204 (controlled purchases and corroboration can establish informant reliability)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (deference to trial court factual findings influenced by witness demeanor)
State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (reasonable knock‑and‑announce delay in drug cases measured by time to destroy evidence)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (appellate review limits for trial factfinding)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (no Fourth Amendment protection for what a person knowingly exposes to the public)